The recent national dialogue over state-mandated vaccinations has placed a serious malignancy in American politics in focus. The overarching argument in favor of mandating vaccinations is that science and medicine have shown that vaccines are both safe and effective, therefore the state ought to mandate their administration.
This argument is troubling, because it commits an is-ought fallacy wherein a policy decision (a mandate) is derived from rote facts (safety and effectiveness). Science is very good at giving us facts about the world, such as the epidemiology of measles and the side effects of vaccines. Such facts have a role in molding what people think and believe; however, no amount of work at the laboratory bench will ever tell us how we ought to craft public policy. Two reasonable people can agree on the scientific facts surrounding measles vaccination and still disagree on public policy. This is because the policy debate is not really about scientific facts, but about what Americans value: public safety vs. personal liberty.
Both political parties are guilty of trying to pass off scientific results as moral imperatives. For example: The age when a fetus can feel pain does not answer the question of whether public policy should value a fetus' viability over a woman's liberty or privacy. Politicians, however, are happy to make an appeal to science. It absolves them of the responsibility of coming to grips with their own beliefs and ideologies and being accountable for them.
When science is on their side, our politicians have an arsenal of ready-made invective for their opponents: "anti-science," "flat-earthers," "Neanderthals" and "Stone Age" are thrown around with glee.
This is an unfortunate turn. Politicians and media personalities would be wise to put down the rhetorical sledgehammer of "science" and instead engage in a real discussion on the value judgments that the American people make about the world. Individuals who value a parent's liberty to choose whether their child will receive a vaccine over public health may or may not be misguided, but they are not "anti-science." Indeed, those who value a woman's privacy and "right to choose" over the scientific definition of a fetus' pain are not "Neanderthals"; they simply have different ideals and priorities that inform their decisions.
Science is fundamentally silent on the question of values, and important policy debates will never be solved in a research laboratory. Rather, our values as a nation are determined by the ideals of the American people in our laboratory of democracy. This is the charm of our system of government: It is a government "of the people, by the people and for the people," not an elite class that claims to speak with the "voice of science" about value judgments that science is ill-equipped to address.
I am not arguing that science has no place in public discourse; it helps us make many decisions by giving us the information required to make policy with our eyes wide open. However, science alone cannot manage the affairs of a great nation like ours; rather, it takes the voices and beliefs of all of us to steer the ship of state.
Peter J. Teravskis, of Apple Valley, is a research scientist.
